Europe mulls banning 'boxes' for abandoned babies

Source: AP-Excite

By MARIA CHENG and DAVID RISING

BERLIN (AP) - German pastor Gabriele Stangl says she will never forget the harrowing confession she heard in 1999. A woman said she had been brutally raped, got pregnant and had a baby. Then she killed it and buried it in the woods near Berlin.

Stangl wanted to do something to help women in such desperate situations. So the following year, she convinced Berlin's Waldfriede Hospital to create the city's first so-called "baby box." The box is actually a warm incubator that can be opened from an outside wall of a hospital where a desperate parent can anonymously leave an unwanted infant.

A small flap opens into the box, equipped with a motion detector. An alarm goes off in the hospital to alert staff two minutes after a baby is left.

"The mother has enough time to leave without anyone seeing her," Stangl said. "The important thing is that her baby is now in a safe place."

Apparently that mom wasn't legitimately raped. (sarcasm) Wouldn't a pro-lifer feel better about abortion knowing this is a real life and death choice AFTER birth for many women?

This Thursday, Nov. 8, 2012 photo shows a view of a baby hatch with a baby sign which is fixed in a wall near the hospital at the district Neukoelln in Berlin. The text on the door reads: Only open in emergency. Graffiti on the wall reads in Polish 'I love you'. Baby boxes are a revival of the medieval "foundling wheels," where unwanted infants were left in revolving church doors. In recent years, there has been an increase in these contraptions — also called hatches, windows or slots in some countries — and at least 11 European nations now have them, according to United Nations figures. They are technically illegal, but mostly operate in a gray zone as authorities turn a blind eye. There are nearly 100 baby boxes in Germany. Poland and the Czech Republic each have more than 40 while Italy, Lithuania, Russia and Slovakia have about 10 each. There are two in Switzerland, one in Belgium and one being planned in the Netherlands. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)

1. What "pro-lifers" fail to realize

Pregnancy itself often kills. It's much more dangerous than having an abortion.

I mean, sure, a woman who can't afford a baby could put it up for adoption. That's not the problem. The problem is, not every woman can endure pregnancy. Doctors can't anticipate who can and who can't.

Then there are the teenagers whose parents would go batshit crazy if their teen became visibly pregnant.

I guess Europe hasn't learned from the dentist who died in Ireland. Now they want to ban one of the few resources women have, for ensuring that a baby gets cared for.

10. They allow for more anonymity without compromising the child's safety.

11. The child's safety has been damaged the moment of relinquishment

Amazing with all we know about human development when it comes to infants for sale everyone is able to forget what they know and magically believe that the infant is "a blank slate".

Every time an infant is removed from their parent and subsequently their entire genetic identity and heritage a horrible crime has been committed against that child that causes lifelong grief and issues.

25. You are not purchasing a puppy from the pound

27. Again, you are grossly generalizing, in a way that is offensive to loving families.

For you to characterize the adoptions of my family members as "purchasing a puppy from the pound" is offensive. If you were trafficked, I am sorry for you. But it is not a reason for you to denigrate my family which came about through a completely different process. The birth mothers were not poor, but for reasons of their own they did not want to raise the children. The adoptions were the choice of the birth mothers as much as the adopting family.

And of course infants are not blank slates. But neither do all women want to raise children. It is not always a case of a woman having a child taken from her.

22. And I guess you need to generalize your experience to places where it doesn't apply in any way.

24. You see, that is part of the big lie that feeds the exploitation of women and children

I was made to feel as a child that I was the only one who was grieving the loss of my mother and identity. Come to find out that my loss is the norm, not the exception. What does seem to be the norm, however, is the fiction that forced on children. I call it "The Big Hush". We all know that we will hurt your feelings if we share with you our feelings about our loss and the question we have about our identity. So we all hide it from you.

Do your homework. There are mountains of information about this. Also, go read website after website, blog after blog where adoptees tell their stories, their truths. We are legion.

37. Pro-human traffickers?

You've got a fucking nerve. I am not pro-human trafficking - I am anti-child abuse. I'm not someone who believes that because a mother gives birth, she is automatically the only qualified person to raise her child. I'm in Oregon - not too long ago we had biological mother Diane Downs shooting her three biological children, killing one, paralyzing one, and seriously injuring another. The D.A. in that case adopted the two surviving children and by all accounts, gave them a wonderful, loving home. I guess he was pro human-trafficking, huh?

In the South we had biological mother Susan Smith drowning her two little boys. What about that guy who doused his son (his biological son) in lighter fluid and lit the match? That's been some years ago.

Motherhood can and should be a beautiful thing, but sometimes it's not. Our overloaded foster care system should tell you something. As someone who spent a good many years working for DHS in two states, I know what the fuck I'm talking about. I've seen the pictures, and read the files. I've read the police reports. So you know what you can do with your bullshit idealistic UNWORKABLE point of view.

39. You need to chill out and stop projecting . . .

What I must assume is a horrible personal experience onto other people. Your posts are contrafactual and your zealotry destroys any credibility you might have. And that's unfortunate, because otherwise your story might be genuinely instructive.

However, as the parent of adopted children (AKA "the parent of children"), I find your downright nastiness (not to mention self-righteousness) more than a little offensive.

34. We have young friends, a happily married couple, who could not

have children. The wife had a medical condition that prevented her from conceiving or carrying a child.

They wanted a child so much, and they were so well suited to be parents. Both were in medical professions.

They finally found a child whose mother could not take care of her. Because of their concern for the mother and her family and their child's heritage, they have an open adoption.

The child will always have contact with her mother and her mother's family, a very traditional family. At the same time, our friends have the joy of caring for a child, of nurturing her and giving her opportunities that her birth mother could not give her.

It's a good solution to a complex problem.

Lots of wonderful children are raised by foster or adoptive parents. In fact, I know one man who will tell you outright that his foster parents were his real parents, the ones who nurtured him and gave him a good start in life. He never got along with his birth mother although she took him in when he was an older child and she was finally able to manage it.

38. I am sorry I did not see this conversation before yoy had a post hidden.

There is more than enough pain to go around in these incredibly complex circumstances.

My parents adopted back in the 50s. Even then, they decided that it was irresponsible to create children themselves when there were so many older "unadoptable" children already in this world who needed homes. There are five in my family, three of whom were adopted at ages 2, 3, and 4. My parents only intended to have 4 children, but when my sister was adopted (the youngest of a family of a dozen or so kids, many of whom were abandoned by their parents in a grocery store) the agency begged my parents to take her sibling. My parents agreed to.

My parents discovered long after my brother (the first one adopted) was adult that he had been taken from his Native American family for reasons that would not have resulted in a white child being removed, as part of a move to Anglicize native children. Both the separation at an older age (past 2) and being raised in a community with no peers did tremendous emotional damage to my brother.

My parents were not engaged in human trafficking (as you have labeled it in the hidden post). They were trying to share the resources they had with children who needed them. Despite my parents' best intentions, my brother was the victim of racist practices that were the antithesis of all my parents believed in. Although it is not anything my parents could have known at the time, looking back on it more than 30 years later once we discovered how to access all of the relevant records, it was pretty clear cut.

My other siblings' case - less so. Their parents were unfit - by any standards. But that doesn't mean the separation was harmless to them - or that being raised in a family so culturally distinct (their heritage is mixed native american and hispanic) was in their best interests. But when a biological parent is truly not suited (by choice or incompetence) to raise their child, the question becomes what is the way forward that will do the least damage to the child.

My personal feeling is that children who cannot be raised by their biological parents should be placed in homes and/or communities that closely match their family of origin when possible - and that whenever possible there should be ongoing contact with the family of origin. All of my siblings are now in contact with their families of origin - some positive relationships have developed, and some toxic relationships have been recognized by my siblings - as adults - that help them understand patterns in their own lives.

But there are no easy answers - either via boxes in the wall, or by calling the parents who open their homes to children apparently in need homes human traffickers.

3. The UN is against the baby boxes.

"They are a bad message for society," said Maria Herczog, a Hungarian child psychologist on the U.N. committee. "These boxes violate children's rights and also the rights of parents to get help from the state to raise their families," she said.

29. My niece would have died

She could not sit up when she was adopted from a Chinese orphanage at 14 months old and people we encountered made fun of that poor baby for having crossed eyes. But the UN would rather children like her die than have loving families in another country. So in my opinion the UN has an agenda in fantasy land that harms kids in the end. But they are so smug what do they care about some neglected beby hated for her imperfections? They have the culture God on their side, dancing on the tiny bodies beneath their feet.

36. Well said, get the red out. n/t

31. The UN should

concentrate on stopping wars. Remember Darfur and all of the raped women who are then shot so as to never being capable of controlling ones bladder or bowels? Where is the UN on that? Please. The UN is pathetic in its efforts to help women or their children.

The UN does NOT even consider the work that women do in the world. It is given NO monetary value whatsoever. All the farming that women of Africa do...a big zero on their Balance Sheet.

The UN is a patriarchy and will do anything to keep it that way. And as far as what women do in their lives, IT WILL BE DEEMED WRONG BY THEM AND SOCIETY. Keep the baby? Give the baby up? Cases are made that both are wrong.

No where has Daddy been mentioned. Are all of these pregnancies Immaculate Conceptions?

Plan B should be sold from vending machines as long as laws against rape are not enforced. There is no political will to stop rape. Why? It keeps women oppressed and in a state of fear. I believe it's 3% of rapists spend time in jail in the US.

And now we read of the horrible results and women pay the price. Put the male rapists in jail.

How much longer is this push back to the Dark Ages going to continue???

35. I am on your side.

4. Keep The Baby Boxes!

Banning the baby-boxes is a bad idea and I don't give a rat's hindquarters if anyone disagrees with me.

There ought to be a place where a desperate, emotionally-distraught young (or not-so-young) woman can drop off an unwanted new-born if she realizes that she can't care for it or if she faces emotionally or physically abuses relatives who would make her or the newborn targets for yet more abuse (The newborn can be DNA tested in case the mother wants to reclaim it later). In light of the barbarous "honor-killing" mind-set that affects some ethnic groups resident in Europe these days, I fail to see how some clueless, rose-tinted glasses-wearing, pink-cloud dwelling liberal ideologues are failing to face some of the uglier parts of human behavior.

I think I've earned my right to share my opinion. Yeah, I'm male. I've also been involved in the reproductive rights struggle for over 30 years now, and regardless of how I feel about access to abortion and post-natal childcare (For and for, by the way), I also realize that there are still a lot of people possessing and acting on archaic attitudes.

6. I agree

It's similar to safe haven. I actually wish we had these boxes in conjunction to the safe haven places. Some kids might be too scared to go to a hospital or police station to leave a new born. So leave the baby somewhere where the mother feels she won't get caught because she doesn't understand she can legally leave her baby. The box is monitored.

I had both my kids after 35 and they were both planned yet I was overwhelmed. Thank goodness for family support, money and just general help.

We as a society refuse to talk birth control to our kids (I've had long discussions with both mine) , want to ban abortion but refuse to support the consequences.

7. 100% agree

Banning these violates a woman's last hope for any rights in some cases. Relatives would often gladly take away rights, as well as abusive significant others. The UN has its head stuck up it's ass in so many ways when it comes to kids. They need to keep out of people's business and stick to providing vaccinations to the poor and food for the hungry.

5. I don't understand the objection to the baby boxes. Like another DU member said above, I see these

baby boxes as being like our save haven law. Is there some notion that a woman who is choosing to leave her baby behind is unaware of a safety net that will help her to raise her own child?
I would think that any person who is in such a desperate situation that they choose to leave their baby in that fashion is making the right decision for the place they are in their life.
It is good to keep the baby safe.
I don't understand how these baby boxes are anything but good.
so often we have news of babies being left to die in garbage cans --these boxes can give a person in a horrible situation a safe route to get their baby to safety.

26. I think it may be similar to objections to food banks

I think the fear is that solutions like this let society off the hook for deeper issues. That is, food banks and baby boxes are bandaid solutions that don't address underlying social realities and give people a warm feeling that something is being done.

9. and so much of this can go away once the Catholic church changes

remove Catholic opposition to contraception and abortion and watch so much of this need dry up.

someone's profiting from all this pain: bleeding hearts are bled dry, kept busy from enacting other activist change; women are kept oppressed; bigoted men are justified and coddled for oppressive patriarchy; the church looks like the perpetual saint; the nation has more warm bodies, grist for the mill of war, vice, and cheap labor...

16. Yes, churches have been a large part of the problem

I will never forget as the Haitian earthquake disaster was unfolding I thought my heart couldn't break and more for the people there until I learned how many American church groups were there involved with the baby industry.

These churches, to the best of my knowledge, did nothing to lobby for better living conditions for the poor but instead used their energies to procure children born to poor women and ship the off for sale in the US.